Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [GTh] Two Blog Postings

Expand Messages
  • Judy Redman
    Mike says: There may be other ways to keep abreast of biblioblogs in which one is interested, but the method I like best is to subscribe to them. This allows
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Mike says:

       

      There may be other ways to keep abreast of biblioblogs in which one

      is interested, but the method I like best is to subscribe to them. This

      allows the receipt of complete postings through email, so that (1) I don't

      have to go anywhere or do anything to check on them, and (2) I get the

      whole posting, not just a snippet.

      [Judy:] I like this method, too. It’s a pity that not all blogging software seems to allow it.

       

      Anyway, two of the above three have postings today, and I find both of

      them interesting. Judy is reviewing Simon Gathercole's new book, and

      today's installment is on SG's argument for Greek origin of Gos.Thom,

      with Judy presenting some good counter-arguments. The only thought

      that I have on the matter is that the prologue of Coptic Thomas uses the

      Syriac form of the name of Thomas, i.e., 'Didymos Judas Thomas',

      versus the Greek form 'Judas Thomas' in the P.Oxy. fragments. This fact,

      however, doesn't necessarily lead to any conclusion except the limited one

      that the Coptic designers were familiar with the Syriac form of the name.

      It doesn't mean, for example, that there was a Syriac version of Thomas.

       

      [Judy:] I haven’t read the arguments that the proponents for a Syriac or Aramaic version make recently, so they are not at the front of my mind. I plan to look at them once I’ve finished reading the book. I suspect that Simon doesn’t work his way through them all systematically, just those he wants to counter. The use of Didymos certainly says something about the milieu in which Coptic Thomas was composed.

       

      A general comment about the book for those contemplating buying it: Gathercole assumes that his readers will have a reasonable working knowledge not just of Greek and  Coptic but also of French and German. You can usually work out the gist of the material that he reproduces from his comments about it, but there are quite a number of passages of French and German that extend to several sentences which he doesn’t translate. There are several of these in each chapter and also (so far) one section in Italian. It is clearly aimed at the serious biblical scholar rather than the more generally well read, interested ‘lay’ person – the cost suggests this as well, of course. If you don’t read French and German, you would need to decide how well you tolerate this.

       

      Judy

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.